These were all over the place today. Surprisingly enough, I only saw 1 fish rise the whole day. I've taken a recent interest in the bug aspect (of fly fishing). So, when I saw these flying about, I had to catch one and take a picture. It was more difficult than I originally thought. So, I was wondering, do you guys have any tips for photographing insects when they are in their adult stage? Anyway, I think this is a BWO, but would like your input. ...BWO is just an educated guess. Also, the insect in the second photo; is that a different bug?

gaeronf, I'm going to risk getting myself in trouble here. First, I believe it is most times very difficult to identify a critter by a photo; however, I will point out some characteristics of the flies you photographed and see what we've got.

Your first photo is definitely a two-tailed critter. Second, it is a male as can be determined by its large eyes. Third, the secondary wing is fairly large.

By a process of elimination we can rule out a Hendrickson spinner. Hendricksons are a three-tailed critter. We can also rule out a Baetis, or BWO, spinner, since Baetis has a very small, elongated secondary wing.

Now, here's where it gets tricky. You didn't give us any indication of size and that's very important. Without that info it becomes even more difficult. My guess - and that's all it is - is a Quill Gordon spinner, male. That would mean your critter was about a size 14 equivalent?

As for the photo of the dun it, too, is a male with those large eyes. I think I see only two tails and I think I see a very small elongated secondary wing. These are characteristic of a Baetis, or BWO. Again, you gave us no indication of size. Again, I'm guessing. That would mean your critter was about a size 18 or 20 equivalent?

Neither is a hendrickson because of the tails. Like Dave said, hendricksons have three. I'm going with they are the same fly ones a dun, the second fly, the first fly is a spinner, I'll even take a stab at it being a P. Adoptiva, except that the tails point to something else. Possibly a Quill Gordon. Hard to tell without something to compare the size.

Posted on: 2012/4/6 21:16

_________________
The object of a resource is to use and reuse a resource, not to use it up, have we learned nothing in over 125 years of stocking?

I'll assume these came from the LL the second was positively a BWO. The first a Red quill would work just fine and I'll agree with old lefty and sand fly on it's technical name. When I was on stream they were both coming off in good to decent numbers averaging a size 18.

Posted on: 2012/4/7 21:27

_________________
Hot and Dangerous if your one of us then roll with us.............

pcray, upon further scrutiny you could be right about the second one. I just flat out dislike trying to identify critters based on photos like this, especially without the photo showing a side-on view. Add to that the fact that I'd want precise, comprehensive info (size, etc.). Without all this, most times I feel like I'm "shootin' in the dark."

Approximate size is important, and can and should easily be added by most "ID" threads. But top-notch pictures are difficult for anyone to get streamside. So I don't get all upset if it's not a perfect picture, so long as they don't get upset if our ID's aren't!

In a picture, what the photographer should be trying to capture, as best as possible, is the main wing, the hind wing (if present), and number of tails. Those are most important to get it narrowed down to a reasonable number of possibilities. After that, color, and decent view of the body shape, tail color and striations, leg color and striations, etc, can help cement the ID. Should also add approximate size and timing, and location to the extent they are willing to divulge.

I find both pics better than average for ID purposes, and the 1st one is about as good as it gets.